CHINTAN A ZAVERI, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 981/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2184 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.981/M/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 MR. CHINTAN A. ZAVERI, 1, SAHAKAR, 34, NUTAN LAXMI SOCIETY, JVPD, 10 TH ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 049 PAN: AAAPZ0695E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)2), C-13, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400051 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.06.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS IN NOT SUBMITTING THE SAID EVIDENCES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME IS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. ITA NO.981/M/2018 MR. CHINTAN A. ZAVERI 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE WAS PRESENT TO ATTEND THE HEARING DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTI CE THROUGH RPAD. WE ARE ,THEREFORE PROCEEDING, TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AFT ER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSING THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE A SSESSEE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE NON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITT ED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE L D CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CI T(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER FACTS AND LAW AFTER ADMITTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE DURING THE AP PELLATE HEARING. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.06.2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25.06.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT ITA NO.981/M/2018 MR. CHINTAN A. ZAVERI 3 THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.